from the kicking-and-screaming dept

Cary Sherman, RIAA boss, is testifying before Congress on Wednesday morning, and (not surprisingly) he uses the opportunity to whine about those dirty pirates again, while asking Congress to buck up and do something. To his credit, it appears that Sherman (or one of his PR handlers) has realized that the combative and confrontational approach he took right after SOPA and PIPA died. He got a ton of backlash for that, and has since tried to be a little less condescending.

Thus, he starts out by talking about all the new business models and modern services that the record labels have adopted and licensed. Of course, he also says that CDs are not digital, so he's a bit confused about the technology. He also leaves out the fact that the labels had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, all the way to agree to the various services that he talks up -- and even then, its stance in negotiating licensing deals with them has been to try to strangle any service that gets too popular. He also talks up the recently negotiated royalty rates between labels, publishers and some digital music services -- leaving out the fact that they include royalty rates on things that don't require royalties (like mere music storage lockers).

But, in the end, Sherman is a one-trick pony, and back to that trick he goes. After talking about all of this "voluntary" innovation they've done -- and highlighting the various "voluntary" six strikes deal, as well as advertising putting together a blacklist of "rogue" sites they won't advertise on -- Sherman goes back to whining about how "piracy" must be stopped. He starts out by, yet again, misleading and misrepresenting what's happening. He talks about how there's less revenue from music sales -- but ignores that more money has gone into music itself, once you look at the massive increase in live music. He ignores the fact that people are actually spending more on enjoying music today than ever before in the past. The idea that people aren't paying is simply wrong.

And then he has the ridiculous gall to suggest less music is getting out to the world because of this:

What kind of harm? Massive layoffs, of course. But also less
money to invest in artists. That means fewer artists on our rosters, fewer people who can make
a living from music, fewer songs permeating through our culture that help form a piece of our
national identity.

That's ridiculous. Look at any credible data, and you see that more music is being created today than ever before. More artists are making money today from music than ever before. And you know how songs can better permeate through our culture and help form a piece of our national identity? Well, here's a hint: by not locking up that music, by allowing it to be shared and played and heard. But that's not how the RIAA works.

He brings up the record labels favorite talking point these days: which is that fewer people list themselves as full time musicians in the Bureau of Labor Statistics data. This is, at best, a red herring. This is a time of transition, and certainly the labels are funding fewer musicians. But new business models are growing rapidly and while they may not be funding as many full time musicians (yet), they are helping more musicians make some money. And, as we've seen over and over again, the trend on these new platforms is that they're growing and able to fund more and more, as they grow. It's a classic innovator's dilemma situation. Similarly, the deeper you dig into the BLS numbers, the more interesting things you find. For example, there's been a massive increase in independent artists. But, the big labels that the RIAA represents don't want you to know that.

He then goes on to claim that enforcement works -- and uses Limewire and MegaUpload as examples. He notes the correlation between growth in sales after Limewire's shut down, and suggests "it is not a coincidence" the two things happened at the same time (though, other reports note the release of some very popular albums at the same time). He also insists that a survey of Limewire users claims they didn't sign up for any other unauthorized service. That's something more like wishful thinking. The data actually suggests there continues to be a pretty big growth in unauthorized sharing. The death of Limewire looks like a temporary blip. Also, if you were a former Limewire user, and a research firm representing the guys who shut it down came and asked you what you were using now, how many of you would point your finger to the new service you found so they could shut it down? Exactly.

As for Megaupload, nice work by the RIAA to support a case that is rapidly falling apart for the US, where it looks increasingly like the US didn't even come close to following the law in shutting down a site that had significant non-infringing uses. And, of course, he leaves out the fact that it was the RIAA's own bogus evidence, which they could never back up, that resulted in a hip hop blog, Dajaz1, being shut down and censored for over a year. That's the kind of enforcement he's supporting?

And then there's the push for a new SOPA:

These voluntary programs are not a panacea. No program ever will be. And sometimes,
the Congress must step in to assure that our property rights, and U.S. economic interests, are
being protected. Especially against sites overseas whose business model is the theft of U.S.
works.

Funny that he says this right after talking about the success in shutting down Megaupload -- which didn't (according to the RIAA or the feds) require any new action from Congress.

He also continues to take shots at the tech industry, and at search in particular. After talking about things like the six strikes program and the ad blacklist, he notes:

We hope
other intermediaries like search engines will follow suit in negotiating voluntary marketplace
best practices to prevent directing users to sites that are dedicated to violating property rights.

Of course, this ignores the realities of the situation, in which you can't just block out sites because the RIAA doesn't like them. The RIAA has a long and detailed history of blaming perfectly legitimate products for being "illegal." Remember, this is the same group that sued to kill the first MP3 player. And now they want the search engines to just trust them in determining which sites are evil and which are good? It doesn't work that way.

He then points out that he wants to "reach out" to "the tech and Internet communities." He could just say, you know, "the public." Also, I'm trying to figure out why Sherman, Dodd and others keep talking about reaching out, but never actually do. Once again, it's not at all difficult to get into a discussion online. Why don't they ever do it?

Sherman also uses the opportunity to once again push for a RIAA bailout from radio, by forcing a tax to advertise their music. The RIAA has been pushing for this tax for years and it makes no sense. The labels know that radio is free advertising for them. It's why they're so often accused of payola. Because they know that if they get their songs on the radio, there's massive value in that and lots of ways to monetize it. So they pay ridiculous sums of money to "promoters" who pass that along to radio people to get the songs on the air. And now they're claiming that the labels need to be paid if the radios play that same music? It's insanity.

Either way, it's still more of the same. Until Cary Sherman is replaced by someone who actually spends time on the internet, the RIAA is going to increasingly represent a smaller and smaller portion of the music industry. The new music industry -- including tons of new artists, new music services, and even new labels, know that the RIAA's focus is on the past, not the future.

It's so ironic to hear the labels complain about iTunes and how much leverage and control Apple has over distribution when it's the very DRM schemes and laws they themselves lobbied for that enable that control. They forged their own shackles.

If they were truly innovating he wouldn't of had to show up for this meeting. Also, there don't really seem to be any changes for the end user actually implemented by the RIAA. so what are they doing to innovate??

'Until Cary Sherman is replaced by someone who actually spends time on the internet, the RIAA is going to increasingly represent a smaller and smaller portion of the music industry.'

and in turn will get more and more support from Congress because they're not interested in the truth when lies (encouragement) pay so well and are not interested in the future of music because most of them will be long gone before that 'future' is admitted to as being the right way, is implemented and becomes a reality

Re:

Funny you would be opposed to taking money (that didn't exist in the first place) yet support the RIAA in their attempt to take rights (that do exist) away from citizens. Not only that, but you seem to be suggesting that you want to take my money away from me and give directly to them just because I use a file locker for things completely unrelated to music (well, RIAA music).

Re:

"Not like you can take MIB 3 on tour."

No, but you could offer high quality Blu-Rays at a reasonable price that don't threaten the people that pay every time they want to play it (preferably not six months after everyone forgot it was in theaters). You could also offer digital downloads for a reasonable price and in a format that people can actually use that doesn't threaten to kill their devices.

Or the big one, you could just realize that movies make a shit load of money despite piracy (or possibly because of it).

"Look at any credible data, and you see that more music is being created today than ever before. More artists are making money today from music than ever before. "

Yet we have already debunked your "numbers" over and over again.

More artists are making SOME money from music, but since the pool isn't getting bigger, the average take home is getting smaller. We don't even have to get into the fact that artists are often now making GROSS rather than net revenue, and you seem totally willing to ignore that their operating costs are eating away that meager income.

Further, while there is perhaps more music being made, are they "permeating through our culture" or are they just piling up unlistened to at various self-promotional websites?

You cannot suggest that we are in a better place now than 10 years ago. Musically, things are segmented, spread out, and not much is making it to the level of national culture.

Re: Re:

Hmm, that's too strong, let me clarify:

The enforcement of all laws is subject to the resources, physics, and the will of the public as to how vigorously they are enforced. It doesn't mean you're ignoring the problem, it means there are limits to what can be reasonably done.

I'm curious, what is it that you think should be done? What would have to happen for you to consider the problem solved? Are the consequences of those enforcement actions worth the benefits?

Re:

I'm not trying to bash here, but I don't really understand this line of reasoning.

Is the crux of your argument is that there are more people making music and that's bad because with more choices there are less "lottery" winning acts? How is that good or bad?

From a consumer point of view, choices have never been better.

If what you are saying is true. Then this is a great opportunity for the RIAA to REALLY innovate and offer a service that help curate this fast expanse of music. Assuming they can do it better than people who do it now.

The U.S. Economic interests

Imagine if they actually succeed with the argumentation that stronger IP protection is needed to protect the U.S. economic interests. The engagement to protect might actually end up actively crashing the economy instead. The irony would be immense.

Re:

Re:

No one is saying it should just be ignored, but what has been said repeatedly on this site is that bad laws will not fix your problems and in fact will cause more problems in the long run and only drive more customers away (not necessarily to file sharing/piracy).

And you're absolute right, you can't take MIB 3 on tour. But you can take the actors, directors, producers, etc on tour along with the film and charge for that. A chance to watch the movie and then discuss it with the people involved in it's making. You could even make a thing of it. Rent out a theater and have some kind of MIB theme put up for the entire theater and even have the staff wearing suits and alien costumes to add to the theme. They could offer up "alien treats" at the concession stand, so the theater can make a few bucks as well. At the end of the movie, have the people involved in making sneak onto the stage that's set up before the lights come on and before the Q&A session starts. Then when it's over before they all sneak off, have a bright light flash and have them "neuralyze" the audience/patrons. That'd be pretty nifty and I'd definitely pay extra for such a thing. Heck, I'd actually go see MIB 3 if they did that, even if it was a one night only thing in my city.

But of course, that might be too creative and original a thought for you and your ilk to accept. That or too much legitimate work. You know, something only us commoners are capable of doing and getting paid for.

Then again, see what I did there. I willingly gave you an idea that beats bitching about a problem, now here comes the part where you say, "Sure, that could work for MIB 3, but what about Transformers 4?! No way you can do that there! So ha! Fail!" Or something else just as moronic. At which point I'd probably face palm at how stupid you are and then laugh because it's quite amusing. You and your kind bitch about problems and rather than address them properly, you make things worse, and when people like me tell you how you can earn our money you call us thieves or get sarcastic or shrug off our suggestions because we're "not in the business" and "what could we possibly know". And that right there is your other problem, dismissing anything that doesn't fit into your preconceived notions as being "wrong" or "dumb" or whatnot. Meh. Your loss, not mine. I'm happy to spend my money elsewhere.

Re: Re:

It really is quite the spectacle watching them flail around as they try and stop the world from turning. I tell you what, there is a tremendous amount of money being made by companies, such as DRM vendors, who are selling them on the lie that you can stop progress because they are so desperate for the good old days that they will believe anyone who claims to have a way for them to keep doing what they've always been doing. Kind of sad really.

"less revenue from music sales" — indeed, sales revenue = downloads and physical product. Prices of both have declined, and people are buying less. People are also streaming more (streaming is not sales), and people are also spending their entertainment dollars elsewhere. But, you know, pirates.

A matter of time

Sherman and Dodd can keep whining and trying. If they know DC like they appear to know it, then they are aware of how Congress tends to shy away from passing legislation that the public has spoken out against.

In the pre-digital era, Congress was fortunate that very little of what they did reached mainstream media, so it was rare that there was ever any real opposition to their corporate friendly legislation. Couple that with the fact that even if the public didn't like legislation, it was unlikely that they would call their representative en masse.

That was then. Twitter and Facebook can generate a buzz in a matter of hours. Take the time to nurture and focus that type of buzz through the appropriate sites (Google, Wikipedia, eBay, etc), and you have a political flash mob of epic proportions.

How many times have the **AA spoken before congress?

Re:

I, for one, will be glad when the Lady Gagas and the Kardasians are not synonomous with our national culture being forced down our throats by mass media. I submit that that the music already in public domain far exceeds anything the *IAAs come up with in their risk averse world.

Re: Re:

RIAA innovate? No, they will wait for someone else to develop the technology, then they'll find a legal excuse to sue it out of existence, and then they'll wait another 5-10 years for someone else who's too big to sue to do the exact same thing, and then they'll pressure them into licensing (even if there's nothing to actually license), and that will of course precipitate years of arguing over the rates, culminating in crying to Congress that they're losing money and that piracy must be stopped.

Re: Re:

I'd also like to add that one of the best and quickest ways to beat file sharing, as independent studies have shown, is to offer the people what they want. Products at reasonable prices (no one is saying free and people are more than happy to pay as has been shown), with no restrictions (be they DRM, geographic or timely), in a convenient location and in an easy to use manner (ala Steam, Netflix or iTunes), and available in a variety of formats.

Do that and you'll be amazed how fast piracy rates start falling. Keep not giving the people what they want and watch them keep going to someone who will. Be it approved of or not, legitimate or not, legal or not.

See, I did it again. I, a consumer, told you how to solve your problem. Not watch me be ignored and be treated to another moronic comment going on about theft (which sorry to say, file sharing is very much not, theft involves something is taken... not copied).

Re: Re:

"Sure, that could work for MIB 3, but what about Transformers 4?! No way you can do that there! So ha! Fail!"

Obviously they've never been to Botcon.

Neither have I, but that's another story...

When Peter Cullen (Optimus Prime for those who don't know) first went to Botcon, the sheer overwhelming positive response he got from the fans was incredible. So much that I wouldn't be surprised if he was driven to tears over it. He never thought that he was so popular with the fans until his daughter got him to go to one.

Fact is, you don't need giant transforming robots for a Transformers tour to work, just get their VAs. I mean, come on! Frank Welker (Megatron), Steven Blum (currently Starscream in TF Prime), Peter Cullen and David Kaye (Megatron from Beast Wars, Beast Machines, Armada, Energon and Cybertron, not to mention Optimus Prime in Animated) just LOVE being in front of fans and talking to them.

Re: Re:

"Is the crux of your argument is that there are more people making music and that's bad because with more choices there are less "lottery" winning acts? How is that good or bad?"

No, the argument is that while on a purely technical level more music is being made, it is not getting out there in any meaningful way. We have more noise perhaps, but even less signal than before. It's not clear that this "more" is really more of anything that anyone wants.

The real issue is that few of these new "acts" are really onthe level to be cultivated and moved up. Regional players, local artists, and sample and knock off artists that are so prevalent out there today aren't something that the public as a whole seems to be willing to latch onto.

"Once again, piracy isn't stopping them from doing it."

Sure it is. If it takes the money out of selling music, they have no motivation to keep investing in a money losing system.

Re:

"Look at any credible data, and you see that more music is being created today than ever before. More artists are making money today from music than ever before. "

"Yet we have already debunked your "numbers" over and over again."

Uh... No you haven't. In fact, more than one study has proven those numbers right, so, try again, Jack.

"Further, while there is perhaps more music being made, are they "permeating through our culture" or are they just piling up unlistened to at various self-promotional websites?"

Personally, I don't like most modern music in the U.S. Give me some good foreign music. Oh, wait, you can't, because it's not in my language and it's in another country, so, if I want the music I want to listen to, I am FORCED to download it illegally because VERY little if ANY of the music I want comes across the ocean.

So, by hook or crook, I'm FORCED to illegally download those songs, because they're songs I WANT to listen to.

And, just so you know, I do purchase CDs still, because I like popping in a CD when I'm in my car and listening to it when I'm driving and I don't have to listen to the "slow" songs that put me to sleep, nor do I have to listen to crappy radio commercials that annoy me.

Question:Also, I'm trying to figure out why Sherman, Dodd and others keep talking about reaching out, but never actually do. Once again, it's not at all difficult to get into a discussion online. Why don't they ever do it?

Answer:Of course, he also says that CDs are not digital, so he's a bit confused about the technology.

To get into a discussion online, you need to be online. Cary Sherman has apparently not owned or used a computer at any point within the last decade or two, since he doesn't know what a CD drive is. I bet if you asked him to play a song from a CD, he'd try to play the CD on a phonograph.

Re:

Yes, a better place

"You cannot suggest that we are in a better place now than 10 years ago. Musically, things are segmented, spread out, and not much is making it to the level of national culture."

I will do more than suggest and positively assert that we are in a better place now. As someone who appreciates music I find far more that I like now (and many of those are the "indie", small time, little guy "remixers and samplers you don't seem to appreciate). As a consumer I have far better choices in the marketplace, and that infuriurates the legacy players). And practically speaking I can enjoy my music more often in different situations, thanks to mp3s and CD burners which the RIAA tried to destroy. And as a human being, I can share my enjoyment with others, despite the RIAAs best efforts.

Re: Re: Re:

I'm not sure what you think can be done about piracy anyway. We've been passing laws, suing people, and taking down sites for some time now and there's been no abatement.

Is it worth the risk of stifling or destroying the greatest invention of the modern age in the name of protecting the profits of an industry about the size of the pet supply industry who seem unwilling to rethink their businesses.

I'm not sure we should be doing anything. There's never been more options for entertainment or more money going into it than there is now. Consumers couldn't be happier. If you are a musician in a traditional label deal then I'm sorry that things suck for you. Sometimes things change.

IF

If the RIAA had ANY sense of honor whatsoever they'd re-start their campaign to have the MP3 player (ipod etc) banned, but as usual they're complete and utter dishonorable cowards who should do the honorable thing....

That includes every single person who used to work for, still works for, or will work for the RIAA in the future

In an interactive world, DIY is king, people teaching others how to do something are the new media kings, not you muppet. I don't wanna flap at the sound of some band, I don't want to glorify some idiot who gets a guitar and believes he is God or something, I just want to try out new things I want to learn and you and those monopolies are a problem to that end.

Re: Re:

He's obviously trying to reach out to those who a agree with him or hoping to show some of us the error of our ways, or more importantly, he's trying to show that there are alot of people that support his view on the subject

Making or losing money

Sherman says they're losing money and laying off people but at the same, time since Limewire and Magaupload were shut down, they're making money.
Are they making money or losing money? or both? I'm confused.

Re:

No proof provided on your part, AC 54 (blue). So your argument is invalid. Provide it now, or a complete retraction of everything you have ever said on this site. Any other response, including silence or imitating/parodying this one, will be taken as such a retraction. So provide your non-industry evidence.

Re: Re:

The problem with that is it would largely serve those who are making millions already. Plus, given the project oriented nature of motion pictures, after shooting for two months (and God knows how many months of post) the release is about a year or so from the shoot. Most people have moved on. Especially the crew making $20/hour- not that the rigging grip would be much of a draw anyway.

Re:

"That's because it's harder to sneak into a concert than to steal a copy of a recording."

Congratulations on figuring out the difference between something that's finite and not reproducible (scarce), and an infinitely reproducible digital file (abundant). Welcome to Econ 101.

And obviously you can't "steal" a digital copy.

"What about motion pictures? Not like you can take MIB 3 on tour."

If you can't see how watching a film in a cinema is (or should be) a much better experience than watching a film at home, and hence more valuable to the consumer, then you have no place in this discussion.

Re: Re:

If you can't see how the relationship of a rock concert to listening on your home stereo differs from the relationship of going to the theater versus watching at home on your HD television- it is you who has no place in this discussion.

And I understand the distinction that allows you to be more comfortable with stealing. You are still unjustly enriched by violating copyright law and taking someone else's creative output for your own enjoyment without compensating the owner.

Re: A matter of time

Sherman and Dodd can keep whining and trying. If they know DC like they appear to know it, then they are aware of how Congress tends to shy away from passing legislation that the public has spoken out against.

Hence six strikes, the ad agency blacklist and developing payment processor shit list. All voluntary, extra-legislative measures without any of that pesky due process stuff SOPA included. Hope you like it!!

Re: Re: Re:

I agree with everything you said until the last paragraph. The industry does need to distribute in the way you outlined.

However, while not meeting the technical definition of theft, what you are describing involves you unlawfully taking something of value (someone else's creative output) for your own enjoyment without compensating the owner. That sort of unjust enrichment is equally as wrong and is just as illegal as theft. I've never understood that tortured rationalization that allows people to convince themselves that it is not simply wrong. And I'm not talking about film buffs swapping favorite movies and shit like that. I'm talking about the wholesale, massive, global infringement that so many people think is just dandy.

Re: Re: Re:

I never compensate owners when I listen to music on the radio. I know this because the moment a commercial comes on I change the station. In some cases I turn off the radio if I'd rather just be alone with my thoughts or hum to myself instead.

I also routinely DVR shows and skip the commercials, thus avoiding watching what pays for the handful of shows I watch.

I also purchase games from the Humble Bundle but prefer that all my funds go to charities of my choosing, thus at most a penny goes to the game developers.

I am a no good thief for all of that, aren't I? According to your deluded view that is. You trolls/shills are getting quite pathetic. It's almost sad... almost.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I never compensate owners when I listen to music on the radio. I know this because the moment a commercial comes on I change the station. In some cases I turn off the radio if I'd rather just be alone with my thoughts or hum to myself instead.

I also routinely DVR shows and skip the commercials, thus avoiding watching what pays for the handful of shows I watch.

I also purchase games from the Humble Bundle but prefer that all my funds go to charities of my choosing, thus at most a penny goes to the game developers.

I am a no good thief for all of that, aren't I? According to your deluded view that is. You trolls/shills are getting quite pathetic. It's almost sad... almost.

Ok, since you are bent on acting like a fucking idiot, I'll indulge you. The discussing was about infringing. I-N-F-R-I-N-G-I-N-G. I typed it really slow so you could follow along. What does anything you wrote have to do with infringing? Perhaps someone on your short bus can explain it to you on the way to school in the morning.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re:

"I wonder what you think it is you're accomplishing with the drive-by insults?"

He's trying to 'scare' or 'deter' Mike and others from criticizing IP. If you criticize IP he will insult you with personal attacks, defame you, make false accusations against you, mud sling, spam your inbox, harass you, maybe threaten, vandalize or attack you, etc... and it could ruin your reputation, etc... especially if he manages to identify you. So be afraid.

It's basically a scare tactic to make you feel threatened. IP extremists have no moral standards and they want to make this clear so that if you oppose their position you know that they are willing to stoop as low as possible to bring you down and ruin your life/career, etc... to scare you away from doing so.

Of course it doesn't work ;)

(the above flagged post isn't really a good example of that though, but many IP extremist shills/trolls have made some really inappropriate posts before).

William Shatner ploy

Re: Re: Re:

He's trying to 'scare' or 'deter' Mike and others from criticizing IP. If you criticize IP he will insult you with personal attacks, defame you, make false accusations against you, mud sling, spam your inbox, harass you, maybe threaten, vandalize or attack you, etc... and it could ruin your reputation, etc... especially if he manages to identify you. So be afraid.

It's basically a scare tactic to make you feel threatened. IP extremists have no moral standards and they want to make this clear so that if you oppose their position you know that they are willing to stoop as low as possible to bring you down and ruin your life/career, etc... to scare you away from doing so.

You mean like the way Anonymous put Chris Dodd's home phone number out on the internet so he and his children could receive vile and threatening calls during the SOPA run-up? Is that the sort of thing you are talking about? I defy you to document an example of anyone from the pro-copyright side doing something like that. Seems like the criminal activities and threats are limited to the copyright abolitionists.

Re: Re:

Or the big one, you could just realize that movies make a shit load of money despite piracy (or possibly because of it).

I see. So the public should determine how much money a product or industry should lawfully make and then after that point, justify those earnings as a reason to simply take the product without paying? Nice theory, but experience indicates that people just take it whenever they can without any cognizance (or concern) of earnings or anything else.

Re: Re: Re:

So, you think the producers should determine the price and everyone just has to buy, otherwise they want new laws that make people buy? Nice theory, but experience indicates that people just will take their money elsewhere.

Re: Re: Re:

So what you are saying is that under your regime the crew would make more money? How come?

Also, with all the "theft" going on driving the industry into the ground (see Avengers), they are still able to shell out that much money and to pay the crews. Now what does that tell you about the harm you've been going on?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Sure it does.It is still unjust enrichment. You have enjoyed my creative output that I offer for sale without compensating me for it. And you have done it in violation of the law. My bottom line isn't a variable in that equation. Your wrongful enrichment is what is at issue.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

What regime? I was simply debunking the idea that there is a film industry corollary to rock concerts.

Sure big tent pole pictures can sustain piracy. What can't sustain piracy is small indy films. The very films that represent the true diversity of expression in the medium and where most of the best films reside and where all of the best filmmakers started. Go to popuppirates.com (I think) and see what happened to one indy filmmaker and why she is out of the business.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"It is still unjust enrichment."

First of all the purpose of IP law should never be to prevent your arbitrary perception of an 'unjust enrichment'. No one is entitled to a government established monopoly. It's purpose should only be to serve a public good. Anything else is grounds to either abolish these laws or fix them.

The only intended beneficiaries should be the public, any benefit you receive should purely be the means. Anything else is an perversion of what it should be intended for. Your post is exactly why the public should be determined to abolish IP laws.

Secondly, I don't subscribe to, or care about, your arbitrary (and selfish) moral standards. It is not unjust, what is unjust is for you to try and impose your arbitrary and selfish moral standards on others. If you think it's unjust then you are free to follow your own moral principles and not freely copy whomever you want, but don't force your arbitrary moral standards on others.

I can just as easily claim that eating birthday cake is unjust because I said so. So don't eat birthday cake. Doesn't make it unjust. I can come up with arbitrary moral standards too and claim that others are violating them and call their actions unjust. It's not unjust.

"You have enjoyed my creative output that I offer for sale without compensating me for it."

If you don't like it then find another job. Your discomfort with me freely copying what I want as I want is your problem, not mine. No one is forcing you to create and release your work.

But what you are absolutely not entitled to is a government established monopoly on your works. It is my every right to copy as I please, this right exists outside of government. Your privilege to prevent me from copying is a subsidy that the government provides you with, at taxpayer expense and at the expense of our rights. I do not want my rights, or tax dollars, being used to maintain this privilege. I want IP privileges abolished.

"Your wrongful enrichment is what is at issue."

No, what is at issues is, does IP law serve a public benefit. Your answer seems to suggest, no, it's not intended to. It's intended to prevent your perception of someone's wrongful enrichment at the expense of that someone, at the expense of everyone. IOW, it goes against the public interest. You are not entitled to an IP monopoly and there is nothing wrongful about me freely copying as I please. So, since its purpose is something other than the public interest, as you seem to claim, the conclusion I draw from your post is that IP laws should be abolished. They are against the public interest and so are immoral in nature.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"what you are describing involves you unlawfully taking something of value (someone else's creative output) for your own enjoyment without compensating the owner."

Your post gives good reason to abolish IP law. IP law should never be intended to prevent someone from 'taking something of value without compensating the owner', it's only intent should be to serve the public interest. Compensating the owner is the alleged means. No one is entitled to a government established monopoly on anything. You don't like it, stop releasing your works and find another job. Since you seem to suggest their purpose is something other than the public interest then the public has a duty to seek the abolition of IP laws.

Secondly, I am not taking your creative output, I am copying it. You still have your copy and so are not deprived of anything. IP laws, by their very nature, are theft, because I am being denied something.

"That sort of unjust enrichment is equally as wrong and is just as illegal as theft."

It's not unjust and it's not wrong. Keep repeating it over and over and .... well, you still won't convince anyone.

"I've never understood that tortured rationalization that allows people to convince themselves that it is not simply wrong."

I can just as easily argue that I've never understood the rationalization that allows people to convince themselves that it's not wrong. Or how about I've never understood the rationalization that allows people to convince themselves that eating birthday cake is not wrong. Or ...

You want to claim something is wrong, I'm afraid you hold the burden to convince others. I'm not the one with the burden to convince you that there is nothing wrong with something. You haven't provided a good reason to believe it is wrong. It's not.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"What can't sustain piracy is small indy films."

[citation needed]

Before the Internet it was much more difficult for indy films to get anywhere because the big media cartels wrongfully controlled the overwhelming majority of communication channels and they abuse/abused their government established communication monopolies for their selfish gain. But, if you look at the data (as Mike has pointed out over and over on this blog and you willfully ignore) Indy films are doing better now than ever before. So you're just making things up based on some (likely fabricated) anecdote.

"Go to popuppirates.com (I think) and see what happened to one indy filmmaker and why she is out of the business."

First of all, do you have a link so that we can better scrutinize your claims? I visited that site and it seems to be a very poorly sourced site with terrible logic written by the same IP extremist shills that visit techdirt.

Secondly, just because one person couldn't make money from an Indy film doesn't mean that

A: The internet/piracy is responsible. This person at least now has a much better chance to gain the recognition necessary to succeed as an indy filmmaker, before, they had to go through the big government established media cartels who (would have and often still do) demand IP privileges on everything broadcasted. So you have to provide evidence that this person would otherwise be successful as an indy filmmaker, the answer is probably not.

Thirdly, I don't care to subsidize an Indy film maker at the expense of my rights (and at the taxpayer expense necessary to fund them). You like this filmmaker you fund him/her yourself out of your own pocket, don't force others to fund him/her by sacrificing our rights (and the tax dollars necessary to enforce these laws).

Artists Cut

I keep remembering what Randy Jackson pointed out some time ago -- that when the record labels began merging and consolidating in the early 2000s, they cut the number of artists under contract from 32,000 to 12,000 and then expected CD sale numbers to be the same. If those 20,000 artists sold a measly 10,000 CDs each, the industry itself cut sales by 200 million CDs or more in pursuit of profits. Dropping an Elvis Costello doesn't necessarily mean those fans are going to buy a Bruno Mars CD instead. In all likelihood, you've lost a customer forever, and that's what happened. The industry did the wrong thing at the wrong time and did it to itself.

Re:

"More artists are making SOME money from music, but since the pool isn't getting bigger, the average take home is getting smaller."

No, this is a lie. The average income for artists is larger. For example, before out of every 100 artists 2 of them would make a million dollars and the rest of them would make nothing. All of those artists making nothing (many of whom may have found other jobs) weren't included in the average. Include them and the previous numbers substantially fall. The average has substantially risen.

and IP laws should not be about increasing the average income of artists and it should not be about increasing the income inequality for artists (some artists making millions while most making nothing or even quitting). Its only purpose should be to serve a public benefit.

Changing this into an argument about why some top artists are making less (because the economy is now more efficient and less plutocratic and the public interest is being better served) and why the public isn't being as optimally exploited by directing as much money as possible towards the smallest centralized group possible, changing this into an argument about the profit margins of the few, is more reason to abolish IP. IP laws should not be intended to serve the profit margins of the few, they should only be intended to serve the welfare of the public.

Re: Re:

(and it's amazing how IP extremists almost admit to the intent of IP laws. They are practically saying, "well, what about the profit margins of the few? How are the few artists going to make millions of dollars. How are movie makers supposed to make hundreds of millions on movie releases". Waa, waa, waa, the profit margins of the few are going away and we can no longer make so much money. They practically admit to this.

But IP should not be intended to serve the profit margins of the few, they should only be intended to serve the welfare of the many.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Dajaz1.com, Rojadiracta (hope I spelled that one right), Megaupload...
while not the same as "posting phone numbers online", they have used the justice system to illegally censor websites and destroy businesses, and their evidence is either extremely weak, non-existant, or made up.

Re: Re:

"Uh... No you haven't. In fact, more than one study has proven those numbers right, so, try again, Jack."

Sorry, try again. First, please point to an actual study, and then explain carefully how it's a net number, and not a gross number. The issue is a big one, artists may see more GROSS money, but net, well, there hasn't been a big increase in sales therefore they can't be making a whole lot more net. More over, with more artists "making money" the average take home pay be definition is getting smaller.

"Personally, I don't like most modern music in the U.S. Give me some good foreign music. Oh, wait, you can't, because it's not in my language and it's in another country, so, if I want the music I want to listen to, I am FORCED to download it illegally because VERY little if ANY of the music I want comes across the ocean."

No, what it means is that you would be unwilling to pay the price to get it legally, so no body bothers to offer it. You should complain to those artists who are unwilling to sign deals in the US for distribution, that is the real problem you are facing.

"So, by hook or crook, I'm FORCED to illegally download those songs"

Nobody forces you to break the law. That is your choice. You could choose to be legal and not download. It's only that your personal desire for the music overrides your respect for the law.

The Blood-Sucking Music Industry

The blood-suckers at RIAA never change. They tried to kill Limewire but all they did was to shutdown the COMPANY Limewire, and that didn't affect the millions of Limewire clients which were already extant on folks' computers. It's been 2 years since the company Limewire was shuttered but my Limewire client has been chugging along, downloading and uploading hundreds of files everyday, day in and day out. Face it: music is free, it has been free for 13 years now and it will NEVER cost anything to a person who uses a P2P client. The days of $19.99 CDs is long dead. The blood-sucking music industry had better get it through their heads that to make any substantial money the artists will HAVE to go out on the road and perform because recorded music is now a give-away. Mark Montgomery NYC, NY boboberg@nyc.rr.com

Re: Re: Re:

"If you can't see how the relationship of a rock concert to listening on your home stereo differs from the relationship of going to the theater versus watching at home on your HD television- it is you who has no place in this discussion."

Right back at ya. They are fundamentally very similar. Both live music and films in the cinema are far more immersive social experiences compared to home listening/viewing. Both involve significant aspects that you simply cannot replicate at home or duplicate and share. I'm amazed that you can't see that.

"And I understand the distinction that allows you to be more comfortable with stealing."

I've reread my post and can't see where I mentioned anything about my "stealing". I don't see why explaining basic economic and social concepts to you should automatically (and incorrectly) qualify me as a thief. It's funny to watch you lash out though, it does indeed make me feel better.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

No, you were not specifically discussing "infringing". I'd like to quote you now, so you can see why I said what I did (which was not acting like a fucking idiot, you're the only one here who ever does that, fyi), "You are still unjustly enriched... taking someone else's creative output for your own enjoyment without compensating the owner."

Re: Re: Re:

No, the argument is that while on a purely technical level more music is being made, it is not getting out there in any meaningful way. We have more noise perhaps, but even less signal than before. It's not clear that this "more" is really more of anything that anyone wants.

....

You cannot suggest that we are in a better place now than 10 years ago

So how do you turn "in any meaningful way" to something objective and measurable and not a personal opinion?

Comparing to where I was buying music 10 years ago at small music shops with cool import sections to iTunes and Amazon mp3 online, I'd say, in my opinion, things are much better today.

Re: Re: Re:

"No, the argument is that while on a purely technical level more music is being made, it is not getting out there in any meaningful way."

I can make the 'argument' that magic fairies make the sky blue. I can make any argument I want.

Your argument holds no water. The music is getting out there, way way way better than ever before. The reason why more Indie content can be made is because it can be distributed. Having the opportunity to obtain a larger audience encourages more people to produce music.

Before almost the only way to distribute one's content is to go through a government established monopolist (be it a broadcasting or a cableco monopolist) which almost always requires that you sign away your IP privileges and sign a very one sided contract with the big, government established, media cartels. and then you were at the mercy of the media cartels discretion and they only allowed a very very few to get their content distributed.

Many restaurants and other venues do not allow independent performers to perform because parasite collection societies demand/demanded fees for them to do that, under the pretext that someone might infringe, or else these parasite collection societies threatened to wrongfully attack the venue with very expensive lawsuits (even if the venue could win). It's so bad that even bakeries are prevented from allowing children to draw custom pictures on their birthday cakes. This intentionally harms artists and makes it more difficult for their content to meaningfully get distributed. If you truly want to help artists get their content distributed you would criticize the existence of government established broadcasting and cableco monopolies and you would criticize any law (IP laws) that deters restaurants and other venues from hosting independent performers. Of course, IP laws were never intended to serve the interests of the artists or the public, only the interests of the parasite middlemen and that's exactly what you intended them to do. It's disgraceful that you are so uncaring about artists that you would use them as the poster child for your purely selfish agenda.

Re: Re: Re:

"artists may see more GROSS money, but net, well, there hasn't been a big increase in sales therefore they can't be making a whole lot more net."

This is a lie. Artists have hardly ever made very much money on record sales, the overwhelming majority of record sale income goes to the record labels. So your complaint is that the record labels aren't making as much. Boo hoo, I feel so depressed.

Artists have always made most of their money on things like concerts and other activities. Now they have a greater gross income to invest back into making more art and doing what they like. Perhaps that's an end to many artists in and of itself. But, most importantly, the public has more content to consume. and the public is even more willing to fund this content creation.

Re:

"You cannot suggest that we are in a better place now than 10 years ago. Musically, things are segmented, spread out, and not much is making it to the level of national culture."

So your complaint is that there is far more competition than before and that's bad? No, it's good. It's good for consumers and it's good for content creators because now more artists have the opportunity to compete. IP laws should not be intended to reduce competition (so that a centralized source can make more money, at the expense of everyone else including the public and content creators). IP laws should not be intended to encourage plutocracy, income inequality, and revenue/cultural centralization. Your post seems to suggest this is what you intend these laws to do. Abolish them. The laws should not seek to artificially centralize culture and to deny anyone else the opportunity to participate in it, that makes us (culturally) worse off, culture is something everyone should be enabled to participate in.

No one's music is entitled to make it to the 'national level'. IP laws shouldn't be about centralizing music and culture into the hands of a very few so that no one else can participate. That's harmful. Right now there is more variety than ever before and consumers can better find music that more closely matches their specific preferences instead of being forced to find generic music chosen by Hollywood executives designed to roughly fit the preferences of a much larger audience.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Oh, and before you go off calling others a "fucking idiot" or telling them to have things explained on the way to the "short bus" you would do well to make sure you've made no grammatical errors in your statement. Otherwise YOU look like the fucking idiot on their way to the short bus to get to school.

Example: "The discussing was about infringing."

Wtf? Do you mean "the DISCUSSION* was about INFRINGEMENT*"?

Sorry to say, but according to your own words, anytime someone unjustly is enriched by enjoying the creative output of another without properly compensating the creator, that is infringement. I'm basing that based off all you've said so far.

"Did you enjoy listening to that song? Well, I hope you wrote the artist a personal check for it. Did you like that show you saw earlier? Cool, you better have watched all the commercials that aired during it and paid for it's production. Blah blah blah." That's how you are coming off and thus that is the reason for my reply to you. It was me showing how I routinely am "unjustly enriched" by listening to or viewing or playing "someone else's creative output for your own enjoyment without compensating the owner." You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you? I bet it really grinds your gears when people turn your own words against you. In fact, I know it does. Else you wouldn't get all uppety like you did and have been. You'd do your side more justice by not being as rude and obnoxious as you have been. Just some friendly advice, cupcake.

Re: Making or losing money

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"You'd do your side more justice by not being as rude and obnoxious as you have been."

He'd do his side better by keeping his mouth shut and not commenting because every time he talks he says something stupid. He should do IP extremists a favor by leaving the commenting to more intelligent IP extremists (if there are any).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

and, besides, the purpose of IP should not be to ensure that someone can make a living creating content. Its only purpose should be to serve the public interest. If its intent is anything else then that's a reason these laws should be abolished.

So, at best, your comment is irrelevant. At worst, your comment is a reason to get rid of IP laws.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Oh, and before you go off calling others a "fucking idiot" or telling them to have things explained on the way to the "short bus" you would do well to make sure you've made no grammatical errors in your statement. Otherwise YOU look like the fucking idiot on their way to the short bus to get to school.

Example: "The discussing was about infringing."

Wtf? Do you mean "the DISCUSSION* was about INFRINGEMENT*"?

I corrected the error moments after posting. Did you miss that or are you just totally desperate?

Sorry to say, but according to your own words, anytime someone unjustly is enriched by enjoying the creative output of another without properly compensating the creator, that is infringement. I'm basing that based off all you've said so far.

"Did you enjoy listening to that song? Well, I hope you wrote the artist a personal check for it. Did you like that show you saw earlier? Cool, you better have watched all the commercials that aired during it and paid for it's production. Blah blah blah." That's how you are coming off and thus that is the reason for my reply to you. It was me showing how I routinely am "unjustly enriched" by listening to or viewing or playing "someone else's creative output for your own enjoyment without compensating the owner."

Again you stupidly overlook key components in making your weak arguments. First, there's your inability to understand infringement. From copyright.gov:

"As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner."

Such things as skipping commercials and listening to the radio aren't infringing. My point regarding unjust enrichment related to the similarity of theft to infringement. The fact that both are illegal and that both have the element of unjust enrichment should be apparent, unless you are even slower than I initially suspected.

You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you? I bet it really grinds your gears when people turn your own words against you.

Let me know when that happens Derpsley.

In fact, I know it does. Else you wouldn't get all uppety [sic] like you did and have been. You'd do your side more justice by not being as rude and obnoxious as you have been. Just some friendly advice, cupcake.

And your side would likely benefit if you stuck with making pot holders, weaving gimp lanyards or recovering stray shopping carts in a Wal Mart parking lot.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"If you can't see how the relationship of a rock concert to listening on your home stereo differs from the relationship of going to the theater versus watching at home on your HD television- it is you who has no place in this discussion."

Right back at ya. They are fundamentally very similar. Both live music and films in the cinema are far more immersive social experiences compared to home listening/viewing. Both involve significant aspects that you simply cannot replicate at home or duplicate and share. I'm amazed that you can't see that.

You can come far closer to replicating a motion picture at home than a rock concert. And it seems that consumers who pay upwards of several hundreds of dollars to attend a concert versus ten bucks to go to a movie do not share your view of how similar the multiplex and concert hall experience are.

"And I understand the distinction that allows you to be more comfortable with stealing."

I've reread my post and can't see where I mentioned anything about my "stealing". I don't see why explaining basic economic and social concepts to you should automatically (and incorrectly) qualify me as a thief. It's funny to watch you lash out though, it does indeed make me feel better

You are but one of the many piracy apologists who attempt to justify infringement and ignore that, like garden-variety theft, it's illegal and involves unjust enrichment.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The framers of the Constitution disagree with you:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" was the first stated purpose of U.S. copyright. The U.S. Constitution ratified in 1788 proposed to do that "by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

What do you think the "exclusive right" was contemplated to do? Most lucid people would agree it was to afford exclusive financial exploitation of such writings and discoveries.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"The framers of the Constitution disagree with you:"

[citation needed]

""To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" was the first stated purpose of U.S. copyright. The U.S. Constitution ratified in 1788 proposed to do that "by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

What do you think the "exclusive right" was contemplated to do? Most lucid people would agree it was to afford exclusive financial exploitation of such writings and discoveries."

You're confusing the ends with the means. The ends are to serve a public benefit, the alleged means are through copy protection privileges.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Is irrelevant, since the argument being made is that the law itself is unjust. That something is illegal doesn't itself justify its illegality.

"regarding unjust enrichment"

There you go again, making IP laws about preventing your perception of an 'unjust enrichment'. No, their only purpose should be to serve the public interest, not to prevent people from 'enriching' themselves. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people 'enriching' themselves, it needs no justification because it's not unjust. Since you're arguing that its intent is about something other than what's in the public interest then your argument is a good reason to abolish them. Abolish IP laws.

"both have the element of unjust enrichment"

Labeling infringement an unjust enrichment is your own arbitrary fabrication. I don't subscribe to your arbitrary and selfish moral principles. What is unjust is for you to impose your personal moral principles on everyone else, as if you are the ultimate authority of morality. You're not. IP extremists are morally corrupt.

"should be apparent, unless you are even slower than I initially suspected. "

The fact that you are an idiot should be apparent, unless you are too much of an idiot to see that. See, I can use your own lack of reasoning to make arbitrary statements too.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

We're a nation of capitalists, Fidel. What you seem to envision is the failed socialist utopian vision of communal property. Without property rights, you get the intellectual and creative dynamics of N. Korea.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

No, their only purpose should be to serve the public interest, not to prevent people from 'enriching' themselves.

You seems committed to ignoring the Constitutional guarantee to an "exclusive right". Yet I'd wager you demand your other Constitutional right to things like due process, right to bear arms, etc. That exclusivity is the incentive for creation. People are enriched by creative and technological advances, but creators are entitled to the exclusive rights to exploit such advances- society is not entitled to enjoy those advances without compensating the creator or rights holder- assuming the creator seeks compensation and the societal benefit is within the statutory period.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"You seems committed to ignoring the Constitutional guarantee to an "exclusive right"."

It's not a constitutional guarantee. The constitution does not guarantee the exclusive privileges. The constitution gives congress the legal right to grant IP privileges but it does not require congress to grant them. So the granting of these privileges is not guaranteed or required.

"Yet I'd wager you demand your other Constitutional right to things like due process, right to bear arms, etc."

Again, IP is not a constitutional right. It's something congress has the discretion to grant, only to the extent that it promotes the progress (serves a public benefit) of the sciences and useful arts.

"but creators are entitled to the exclusive rights to exploit such advances"

No they are not. No one is entitled to a government established monopoly. To make this about serving a creators alleged entitlement is reason to abolish IP laws. Their purpose should only be to serve a public benefit, nothing else.

"society is not entitled to enjoy those advances without compensating the creator or rights holder- assuming the creator seeks compensation and the societal benefit is within the statutory period."

Society is not entitled to the air it breaths either. No one is entitled to anything.

However, society has a natural right to freely copy as they please despite an IP holder's disagreement. IP is a privilege given to IP holders by government, at the expense of those being governed and those funding the government. It's not something the government is, or should be, required to grant, it's not something creators are entitled to, it's purpose is not to prevent society from receiving something you claim they are not entitled to. It's only purpose should be to serve a public interest. I do not want IP laws to exist and I don't want government to pass them anymore. If a creator doesn't like it s/he can find another job.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Without property rights, you get the intellectual and creative dynamics of N. Korea."

Provide reliable citations explaining the intellectual and creative dynamics of North Korea and provide reliable and reasonable citations and data and argumentation to show us the dynamics of IP laws there and how they are responsible. Oh, and I don't want some link to a website with anonymous authors and no citations and made up nonsense, I want reliable citations.

You can make baseless claims with multiple assumptions all you want, but to convince others you need more.

You musta recently seen this headline, though you obviously skipped the contents.

"That's significant because the penalties for anyone caught with forbidden music and videos are severe: months or even years in a North Korean prison camp."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Without property rights, you get the intellectual and creative dynamics of N. Korea."

Provide reliable citations explaining the intellectual and creative dynamics of North Korea and provide reliable and reasonable citations and data and argumentation to show us the dynamics of IP laws there and how they are responsible. Oh, and I don't want some link to a website with anonymous authors and no citations and made up nonsense, I want reliable citations.

Fuck you. Do your own research.

You can make baseless claims with multiple assumptions all you want, but to convince others you need more.

You musta recently seen this headline, though you obviously skipped the contents.

"That's significant because the penalties for anyone caught with forbidden music and videos are severe: months or even years in a North Korean prison camp."

Funny, the only thing missing was any indication that the law was actually enforced.

So ... North Korea has strict IP/content/infringement laws and you are arguing that they have poor intellectual and creative dynamics?

No, Derpsley. I am arguing that the lack of exclusive property rights is why they are among the most ass-backward nations on earth. That creates a paucity of creative/technological innovation to infringe on in the first place. God, you are a dope.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"No, Derpsley. I am arguing that the lack of exclusive property rights is why they are among the most ass-backward nations on earth. That creates a paucity of creative/technological innovation to infringe on in the first place. God, you are a dope."

No, what you are doing is making arbitrary statements with baseless assumptions and you are neither substantiating your statements or their assumptions. Don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

"Funny, the only thing missing was any indication that the law was actually enforced. "

More relevant questions are

A: How much effort is going into enforcing the laws.

B: How much are attempts to enforce these laws costing, both in monetary costs and in the costs to citizen rights.

C: How effective are these enforcement efforts. If they're not effective and they're costing a lot of money maybe the laws themselves should be done away with.

D: How are these laws promoting a social benefit. Can you provide evidence?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

It is OK for creators to profit from their copyrighted creation. And it is OK for inventors to profit from their inventions. Why comrade, do you believe that something unique and copyright/patentable should be public property. What effort did the public put in to it?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You are aware that a government granted privilege (which is most definitely not a Constitutionally protected right) and monopoly is a lot more Socialistic than anything the AC you replied to said, right?

And if you don't, are you just pretending to be that stupid or were you born that way?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"The reason why more Indie content can be made is because it can be distributed. Having the opportunity to obtain a larger audience encourages more people to produce music."

Yes, when you audience before was 1 (your significant other) and you double or even triple that, I can see the motivation.

Seriously, artist make art to make art, not because they can reach more people. The standard Techdirt excuse is that recording is cheaper - and my opinion is that sampling got easier and autotune came along, making is possible for non-talented people to appear to be musicians.

"Many restaurants and other venues do not allow independent performers to perform because parasite collection societies demand/demanded fees for them to do that"

We have been over this about a million times before. The fees charged are VERY low, requiring only a very small increase in business as a result of the artist appearing. If adding an artist doesn't increase business, then why bother? Most places that increase their business as a result of artists performing are willing to pay the fees because it is a very small cost. The ones who are getting nailed are the ones that make no new business as a result, have live performances infrequently, and generally have lots of empty chairs not generating income during these performances. You can go back and look at the history on this on Techdirt, there are plenty of examples where the cost per night was around $20, yet the venue could not justify this cost with improved sales. That it sad for them and sad for the artists, but not the collection groups fault.

However, that is all off on a ranting tangent. The real question is are artists really making more money? There is nothing in Mike's "sky is rising" that supports this at all. He plays gross instead of net games, and ignores the true costs to artists to actually perform and operate their own businesses.

Re:

You cannot suggest that we are in a better place now than 10 years ago.

Not only can I suggest it, I can outright state it with a high degree of certainty. Jamendo, Bandcamp, and Magnatune didn't exist 10 years ago. Now they do. Therefore, we're in a better place now.

Or at least I am. I can imagine how the shill types would hate it...especially the ones who complain about "noise" and can't stand the thought of figuring out on their own what music to like, instead of relying on the opinions of some cigar-chomping, sangria-sipping empty suit in a high rise office building.

Re: Re: Re:

"No, what it means is that you would be unwilling to pay the price to get it legally, so no body bothers to offer it. You should complain to those artists who are unwilling to sign deals in the US for distribution, that is the real problem you are facing."

No it doesn't. The real problem I'm facing is that none of the major importers want to take a chance and import songs from across the ocean. I like Stratovarius, but I can't find that band's music very easily. (BTW, they're Finnish) JAM Project is just awesome and has some of the most epic music ever. Nana Mizuki, Yukari Tamura, Maasaki Endou, Megumi Hayashibara are some of the best Japanese singers out there, NONE of their records are out in America. Oh, BTW, the only place to FIND music is generally Wal-Mart and other retail stores, none of them carry it. And just so you know, at least one of them is distributed through Sony Music, which DOES work with Wal-Mart, so your claims are quite debunked there.

Just last month I found some foreign music that WAS licensed in the U.S. Cost more, but I bought it anyway. Guess what? I enjoyed it.

Wanna try again?

"Nobody forces you to break the law. That is your choice. You could choose to be legal and not download. It's only that your personal desire for the music overrides your respect for the law."

Yes, they do force me to break the law. I want to get the music, I can't get the music legally, so, how am I supposed to get the music?

That's right, I have to infringe and illegally download.

See, here's the thing, bub...

The free market that everyone talks about, how it's great for competition...

One thing they don't mention, and they should...

Is that people *WILL* get what they want, regardless if it's legal or not.

That's the black hand of the free market. No matter what laws, obstacles or other things you throw in people's faces, they WILL find a way to get what they want.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"However, that is all off on a ranting tangent. The real question is are artists really making more money? There is nothing in Mike's "sky is rising" that supports this at all. He plays gross instead of net games, and ignores the true costs to artists to actually perform and operate their own businesses."

Keep telling yourself that, sunshine.

Go live in the past, the rest of us will figure out how to profit in the future, okay?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I believe copyrighted material belongs to the artists not the labels (who use account tricks to prevent paying the artists) or Disney who takes the hard work of great authors and continually milks it for pennies, while maintaining a monopoly on IP.

You're not garnering any sympathy for the corporations that only have greed, and not creation or compensation for the artists on their mind.

Re: Re:

Or at least I am. I can imagine how the shill types would hate it...especially the ones who complain about "noise" and can't stand the thought of figuring out on their own what music to like, instead of relying on the opinions of some cigar-chomping, sangria-sipping empty suit in a high rise office building.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Seriously, artist make art to make art, not because they can reach more people. "

Then they can just easily make art to make art and not to receive compensation.

and artists may also make art to reach people as well. To say otherwise is silly.

"We have been over this about a million times before. The fees charged are VERY low"

Yes, we have been over this before, and this is a lie no matter how much you capitalize it. Keep telling lies.

"Most places that increase their business as a result of artists performing are willing to pay the fees because it is a very small cost."

You are once again making arbitrary statements. You have no idea what you are talking about and don't really care. I can just as easily claim that magic fairies exist and they revolve around my house. Making up arbitrary statements is fun.

It is not a small cost, that's something you made up. Many restaurants refuse to host independent performers because of the costs.

Whether something is profitable or not depends on cost vs revenue. Adding additional costs makes doing something less profitable and so fewer businesses will do it. Plus there is additional risk, adding additional costs poses the additional risk that a business venture won't succeed and so fewer will do it. Not to mention it maybe difficult for a restaurant to directly measure the profitability of a band and so adding additional costs adds additional uncertainty. You really need to take a basic economics course.

This hurts artists, it hurts the public, and it hurts the restaurants. It hurts everyone except for the parasite middlemen.

"The ones who are getting nailed are the ones that make no new business as a result, have live performances infrequently, and generally have lots of empty chairs not generating income during these performances."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"You can go back and look at the history on this on Techdirt, there are plenty of examples where the cost per night was around $20"

$20 per night that's $140/week or $560/month or $6,720 per year. That's not a small chunk of change. That's ridiculous.

"That it sad for them and sad for the artists, but not the collection groups fault."

What world do you live in?

How is it not the collection societies fault? If a venue wants to host independent performers and can't afford the collection society tax that is the collection societies fault.

and the beginning of your post pretends to be about benefiting artists but now you are admitting that this harms them. So IP law is responsible for harming

A: The public

B: the Restaurants

C: The artists

The only ones benefiting are the parasite collection societies that contributed absolutely nothing. and yet, in your world, this is acceptable.

IP law is to blame for this. IP laws should only be intended to serve the public interest, nothing else. Yet their intent is something entirely different, their intent is to serve the parasite middlemen that contributed nothing and aren't deserving of a dime. They didn't earn any of the money that they demand, they are not helping artists, and the law should not allow them to steal from these venues. This is the very definition of theft. It's immoral.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You don't seem to understand the difference between hobbyists and those who aspire to be professional film makers.

Filmmakers at exactly the level of "And Then Came Lola" are exactly the type of filmmakers that Techflaws was talking about.

These are the type of filmmakers who benefit the most by technological change: the same technological change that allows filesharing to exist. There is no evidence whatsoever that file sharing actually harms filmmakers like this.

So, what is it? Are people like Seidler "hobbyists?" If so, then that's pretty insulting, and also incredibly hypocritical that you would even present the link in the first place.

If not, then you have to provide evidence that filesharing actually harms indie filmmakers at that level. You've presented none. And, in fact, the popuppirates site presents absolutely zero evidence that filesharing hurt "Lola," either. (Nor that Google hurt them - and Google, not the pirates, is her real target here.)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Copyright is not capitalism. It is a government-granted monopoly. It is exactly as "capitalist" as the Dutch East India Company.

If you want laissez-faire capitalism, you'd get rid of copyright, and let any publisher sell any book that they want - including reprints of other publishers' books - free from enforced monopolies.

Now, I am not a copyright abolitionist. Nor am I a strict laissez-faire capitalist. I do believe that some government regulations are often necessary, and that includes some form of copyright (though not the form we have now).

But, make no mistake about it: copyright reformers are not in any way advocating socialism. They are advocating for its opposite.

Re: Re:

Damn, can't find the link to it but somewhere I read an article about Steve Jobs coming out of a meeting with the record labels, and it said he was grinning ear to ear because the labels had completely forgotten who their customers were.

He knew he had 'em by the balls.

Who says "Content is king"? If not for technology, there wouldn't be be any way to enjoy any content.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"You can come far closer to replicating a motion picture at home than a rock concert."

I assume you actually meant replicating a cinema at home (since that's what we're discussing), which can only be done by spending a lot of money, which makes your next line completely laughable:

"And it seems that consumers who pay upwards of several hundreds of dollars to attend a concert versus ten bucks to go to a movie do not share your view of how similar the multiplex and concert hall experience are."

Serious home theatre fans spend tens of thousands of dollars to build something that is still nowhere near a decent cinema and more importantly still does not at all replicate the social experience of going out to the movies. It's sad that you consistently fail to see the value in that.

Besides, your concert vs. movie comparison is pointless, because you can't walk into a multiplex any day of the week and pick from one of a dozen different music acts playing several times a night. If you could, nobody would pay several hundred dollars for the privilege. Supply and demand must be in next week's Econ 101 class. Don't miss it!

Re: Re: A matter of time

Your insistence that somehow everything would be improved under SOPA is bullshit. SOPA supporters have already made it clear that they needed SOPA to shut down sites that parodied or criticised them. (Again, I emphasise - whoever claims that the definition of copyright hasn't changed is fooling themselves.) So now that these people have to attempt getting away with this shit instead of having it set in stone into law, it's somehow our fault? "We wanted to rip you off legally, but you wouldn't let us! Now we have to do it outside of the court, and it's all your fault!"

The recording industries have proven that they can't be trusted with new laws. They were given the DMCA. Now they're kicking and screaming that it's not harsh enough. Laws clearly aren't the answer.

End of the monopoly

The RIAA claim that their income has halved & blame piracy. The truth is while the RIAA monopoly once controlled almost all the music market now the Indie artists have the larger market share causing the RIAA's losses.

There is not much money to be made in sharing free files, even if most people now use official supply channels like iTunes, but the Indie market is worth millions. The RIAA create laws to target piracy but really target Indie music supply channels like DaJaz1 and MegaBox.

It is obviously a grave mistake to arm these people with SOPA like laws. If anything the Indie musicians should form their own lobbying organization and point out often that the smaller RIAA do not represent the music voice of America.

Re: Re: Re: Re: A matter of time

"Six strikes isn't yet ramped up. Where will consumers take their business to ... dial-up?"

Ever hear of darknets? Or the fact that people WILL find a way around any blocking. It's not too hard, if I get strikes, I'll just start using proxies or find a new way to browse that those "six strikes" can't touch.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A matter of time

Going after consumers directly (ie: kicking them off the Internet) is never a good idea. That leads to protests, huge backlashes, public criticisms and outrages and out lashes against those responsible (ie: the example with Chris Dodd mentioned above when he tried to push for SOPA. Not that I support such activities). The police can't cost effectively police everyone without creating a police state or something.

This is why anti-competitive laws have mostly been about going after producers and service providers. Government established broadcasting and cableco monopolies, govt established taxi-cab monopolies, wrongfully going after restaurants and other venues that host independent performers (or bakeries that want to allow children to draw custom drawings on their birthday cakes) instead of going after infringing performers that perform at restaurants. It's much easier to go after the restaurants and service providers/businesses and results in less public outrage because it keeps the public from being as aware of the problem and how much this problem negatively affects them (especially since the government established media cartels are part of the problem). It's why they go after Veoh, Megaupload, etc... Going after infringing users is directly too costly and results in too much backlash. Better for the public not to know what's being taken from them.

Them going after the users directly is probably a better way to spread more awareness about our IP problems. It's ultimately a mistake on their part that will likely backfire if not treaded very carefully (and you know how careful all these IP extremist organizations have been).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A matter of time

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A matter of time

There is no way to stop committed freeloaders such as you. These measures target the soft middle, between people who would never think of taking something that they're not entitled to and people like you. For most internet users the crime is committed because it's easy and the risk of consequences is very low. Drying that up would go a long way to staunch the bleeding.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A matter of time

I do purchase my stuff when I can, but you really are stupid if you think that it will stop people from getting what they want.

"These measures target the soft middle, between people who would never think of taking something that they're not entitled to and people like you"

Then what's the point? The "soft middle" as you say... Putting something like that in play will only drive the "soft middle" all the way to the edge and become those "freeloaders". After all, if they're going to treat us as criminals, might as well BECOME criminals then.

"Drying that up would go a long way to staunch the bleeding."

That didn't stop alcohol during prohibition, it doesn't stop marijuana just because smoking it was a federal offense, now does it?

Most people (present company excluded) have a fairly strong moral compass; and if it's made harder to steal via technical or legal measures and easier to obtain content via growing legitimate distribution channels- then I believe that far more people will chose not to break the law by taking something of value without paying for it. You are not entitled to illegally obtain whatever copyrighted media you want whenever you want it. Try paying or doing without if you are to cheap to pay for it.

But if there's no legal means, then the Free Market goes Black Hand and illegal things happen.

"I believe that far more people will chose not to break the law by taking something of value without paying for it."

And how is downloading "taking something"? There's no loss of physical substance, so there's no "taking" involved.

Do you really need to be schooled on unjust enrichment again? A motion picture or music is an experience that is generally offer in exchange for money. When you enjoy (take) that experience without compensating the rights holder you are committing a form of theft. It is differentiated from theft only by the fact that the owner has not experience a loss of inventory. Then again, there's the fact that it (like theft) is a crime- not that I expect that matters to the likes of you.

And please don't use an inability to obtain legally as an excuse for your crimes. It's entertainment for Christ's sake. Not food, not water, not medicine. Just entertainment.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Funny you should say this. Are we allowed to unjustify paying rightsholders for playing ambient music during weddings and having to pay more if you dance? The rightsholder didn't get the couple together, institute their marriage or arrange for reception, neither was the song written for the wedding; what effort did the rightsholder make with regards to the wedding?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

re the music industry illegal moves

well this american needs to understand that he can allege certain things in usa but when the place the so called events are happening is subject to NZ Law, and they have not actually charged them with anything yet, they have had him arrested without actual charges, and obtained information off his servers without authority of the NZ Courts via the FBI so be aware this is not going down in Nz very well at all, and once you get the kiwis backs up you can find the whole nation closes ranks and will nail you guys as the French found out when they though they could blow up a greenpeace boat in Nz
they simply found that every kiwi became an informant and kiwis do not like legal bullies so i tell you now you will struggle to get megaload guys out of NZ because the FBI are showing themselves to the judge to be underhand and all events must standup under NZ law